One of Anglo-Jewry's most venerable traditions is criticising the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Founded in the 18th century, it remains one of the principal means of representing Jewish opinions and interests to government and the wider British public. The closest thing there is to an Anglo-Jewish parliament, its member deputies are elected or appointed from British synagogues and other Jewish institutions.

The board is periodically engulfed in controversy as sections of the community complain about its lack of representativeness or, conversely, refuse to be associated with some of its constituents. In the first half of the 20th century the question of whether to embrace Zionism was the principle source of conflict. In the postwar period, the growing presence of deputies from non-orthodox synagogues eventually led ultra-orthodox representatives to pull out.

In the past two decades, criticism of the board has crescendoed. Jews unaffiliated to synagogues have complained that the board speaks for them without their being represented. Left-wing Jewish critics of Israel have condemned its unwavering support for Zionism and increasingly those on the right complain that it doesn't defend Israel vociferously enough. More generally, the board's unwieldy profusion of committees and its arcane procedures have lead some communal leaders to lose patience with it.

Periodic reports and papers arguing for change have produced only piecemeal reforms. Gradually, authority has leached from the board, as newer bodies such as the Jewish Leadership Council and the London Jewish Forum have usurped some its representative and co-ordinating functions.

It would be understandable therefore, to predict the demise of the board in the not-too-distant future.

But recently something surprising has happened. A grassroots campaign has been launched, not to abolish the board, but to increase its relevance by encouraging young people to stand for election as deputies.

The starting point for the campaign is hard to argue against: "Nearly two-thirds of deputies are over the age of 60. This must change – 12.4% of British Jews are over 75, yet at the board, 26% of deputies are over 71. About 25% of British Jews are aged between 20 and 40, yet at the board just 7% of its deputies aged under 40."

The campaign explains how to stand for election as a deputy and – rather cheekily – has published a list of current deputies, suggesting: "Why not get in touch with them and see if there is a spare space within their organisation or if they are planning on stepping down?"

The mission statement of the campaign appears to be highly ambitious: "This is revolution, but without the blood." But what's fascinating and what distinguishes this campaign from previous attempts to change the board, is that there is no attempt to reform it structurally. The assumption seems to be that it is the demographic makeup of the deputies that is the biggest problem with the board.

There's no doubt that a more youthful board would have a rejuvenating effect on the organisation. "Elections" in synagogues and other communal organisations are rarely contested, the result being that deputies often stay on the board for decades. It usually takes years of involvement to be elected by other deputies to the committee and leadership positions within the board, where much of the real decision-making takes place.

But even if the campaign succeeds, there are two problems that won't go away and cast doubt on the possibilities of achieving the desired "revolution".

The first is that deputies are elected from organisations, principally synagogues. This does indeed represent an electorate of the majority of British Jews, who affiliate in some way to the organised community. Yet the large unaffiliated minority still doesn't get a look in. The case – not entirely invalid – is sometimes made that there is simply no way of representing this minority and that – more tendentiously – their lack of affiliation means they do not need or deserve to be represented. But without a method of election that covers all of Anglo-Jewry (and don't forget that most of the growing ultra-orthodox minority also exclude themselves from the board), the board's claims to representativeness will always be undermined.

The second problem is more cultural. The board has an ostensibly parliamentary structure, but a real parliament has parties or at least fairly clear political divides. Parliaments also have organised oppositions, ensuring that no majority leader can ever claim to have a unanimous mandate. Anglo-Jewry is politically divided, over the question of Israel and much else, but the dividing lines between the deputies are highly opaque and always fluid. Deputies are rarely elected on any particular mandate.

So while having more young people on the board will certainly increase the board's representativeness, there is still a long way to go before it can become a fully democratic voice of Anglo-Jewry.

Perhaps there are always going to be limits as to how much a minority community can ever develop a truly representative body. No other British minority has fared much better than British Jews have. Maybe it is only the parliament in Westminster that can claim anything close to representing Britain, in whole or in part.